QAA targeted peer review at the University of Glasgow, and what it signals for student feedback evidence

By Student Voice AI

Updated Apr 05, 2026

On 27 January 2026, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) published the report of a QAA targeted peer review at the University of Glasgow, commissioned by the Scottish Funding Council under the Scottish Quality Concerns Scheme. [QAA announcement] For universities that collect and act on student feedback, the message is immediate: weak assessment processes become visible fast when students cannot understand the rules, track extension requests, or trust how changes are communicated.

What has changed in the QAA targeted peer review

QAA’s announcement states that the review identified systemic risks in relation to quality and standards at the University of Glasgow, with a particular focus on assessment regulations and student communications. The report sets out 21 recommendations, and QAA notes that the university must submit an action plan within four weeks. The practical takeaway is clear: assessment policy only works when students can understand and use it, a theme reflected in QAA’s assessment literacy toolkit for student feedback on assessment.

The report says the peer review was commissioned by the Scottish Funding Council after a quality concern was raised in 2025, following an independent investigation by King’s Counsel. The peer review itself focused on systemic risks in processes that shape the student learning experience at scale, including assessment regulations and the award of credit, extension request processes, student communications, risk mitigation and oversight, and student engagement in institutional change. That sits alongside QAA’s wider emphasis on student engagement in quality assurance, not just consultation after decisions are made.

The announcement also signals a wider sector implication for Scotland:

"commissioning QAA to conduct a national review of the assessment and associated policies and procedures across the sector."

For student experience teams, the theme linking the recommendations is practical. Students need coherent programme and assessment information, a predictable extension process, and clear routes to raise concerns. These are the areas where open-text survey comments, complaints themes, and staff-student forum issues often surface problems first, which means this review is also a reminder to listen for operational friction, not just headline satisfaction scores.

What this means for institutions

First, treat assessment policy and process as part of the student feedback system, not just the academic rulebook. When policies are unclear, applied inconsistently, or hard to navigate, students do not just report dissatisfaction, they lose confidence that raising issues leads to fair outcomes. That weakens engagement in module evaluation and other feedback channels, just when you need reliable evidence most. It is one reason student voice in assessment and feedback matters beyond annual survey reporting.

Second, measure student experience at the level of process. A clear improvement plan needs more than a policy document. It needs evidence that students can find accurate information quickly, submit and track requests (extensions, deferrals, special circumstances), and see complaints handled to clear service standards. The report explicitly recommends using complaint data to identify issues and set expectations, which offers a useful pattern for institutions across the UK.

Third, if you are strengthening your approach to quality assurance, check whether your student voice evidence is traceable. Can you show what students said, how you analysed it, what changed, who owned it, and when students were told? That evidence chain makes quality work easier to defend internally, and it is the same one that comes up in OfS quality assessment contexts, as in our recent post on OfS quality assessments and student feedback evidence.

How student feedback analysis connects

At Student Voice AI, we often see assessment and communication problems hidden in plain sight in qualitative comments. Students describe uncertainty about regulations, frustration with extension processes, and confusion when assessment changes are not communicated clearly. Analysing open-text at scale helps teams quantify how widespread a problem is, identify which cohorts are most affected, and pull representative examples for action planning. That gives quality teams a faster route from anecdote to evidence.

If you are tightening governance around these topics, two practical starting points are our student comment analysis governance checklist and NSS open-text analysis methodology. For teams using sentiment views in reporting, our guide to sentiment analysis for UK universities sets out practical interpretation rules, so you can move from raw comments to a defensible action plan more quickly.

FAQ

Q: What should institutions do now in response to this QAA targeted peer review?

A: Treat it as a checklist for your own assessment-related feedback loop. Confirm students have a single source of truth for assessment information, test the extension journey end to end, including tracking and response times, and review complaints themes alongside module evaluation open text. If you make changes, publish an action log and close the feedback loop with students.

Q: Does this apply UK-wide, and what is the timeline?

A: The targeted peer review relates to the University of Glasgow and the Scottish Quality Concerns Scheme, so the immediate scope is Scotland. QAA’s announcement (published 27 January 2026) also notes a Scottish Funding Council commissioned national review of assessment policies and procedures across the Scottish sector.

Q: What does this signal about how student voice evidence is used in quality work?

A: It reinforces a direction of travel towards operational evidence. Student feedback becomes more useful when it is timely, analysed consistently, linked to action, and supported by clear communications that show students what changed and why.

References

[Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA)]: "QAA review finds systemic risks to quality and standards at University of Glasgow"
Published: 2026-01-27

[Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA)]: "Scottish Quality Concerns Scheme, Targeted Peer Review, University of Glasgow (Review Report)"
Published: 2026-01-27

Source URL: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/news-events/news/qaa-review-finds-systemic-risks-to-quality-and-standards-at-university-of-glasgow

Request a walkthrough

Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo

See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.

All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.

Prefer email? info@studentvoice.ai

UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround